Business and Community Affairs committee reviews pro‑housing grant work plan; debates eliminating minimum lot sizes and parking options

City staff told the Business and Community Affairs committee on Thursday that the city is starting work on four projects funded by a federal pro‑housing grant and has until September 2030 to spend the award. Staff said the initial work will focus on updates to zoning and subdivision regulations and a parking study, followed by a pre‑approved plan book and an affordable housing action plan.

“Um so as you guys know, we got the pro‑housing grant. So we have until September 2030 to use all of those funds and we have four projects,” the staff presenter said, providing the timeline and project list. The presenter said the city plans to issue an RFP for the pre‑approved plans in the first part of 2028 under the HUD‑approved action plan.

The parking study team began collecting data last week in downtown, campus corner and the center‑city area, staff said, and will return in late June and again in the fall when classes resume. Staff identified Nelson Nygaard and Park Analytics as the consultant team conducting the study and said the work will examine how residential parking requirements affect housing affordability and where parking pressure is greatest.

Councilmembers spent most of the discussion on two policy ideas: eliminating or reducing minimum lot sizes for new development, and setting parking maximums with compensating measures. One councilmember argued for removing a minimum lot size requirement for new development to allow more creative housing types. “It was my my preference ... that that be zero. We have no minimum lot size because we have other controlling factors like frontage, lot width,” the councilmember said, adding that at minimum the city could halve the current 6,000‑square‑foot threshold while evaluating effects.

On parking, the committee discussed treating a parking maximum as a soft cap: developers could build past it but would pay fees or be required to provide low‑impact development measures on site. Committee members suggested directing any fee revenue toward stormwater solutions or creating an interim stormwater trust that could later become a full utility. A councilmember warned the city must design any local fee carefully to avoid state preemption.

Councilmember Graham asked whether the pre‑approved plans would function as a pattern book for accessory dwelling units and small multifamily types; staff said the city expects to start with a small set of typologies (for example, detached and attached ADUs, a duplex and a triplex) and prefers to solicit proposals from local architects when possible.

Staff also discussed grant administration details: the pro‑housing award was announced roughly a year earlier, contracting with HUD followed, and the city must submit quarterly reports to HUD. Staff identified the program by its formal name, Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing, and said the city is in the program's second cohort. A resident asked where to find the approved action plan and grant agreement; staff directed the resident to the city's CDBG/pro‑housing web pages.

No formal votes or motions were taken during the meeting. With no further business, the Chair adjourned the session.

What happens next: staff said they expect to post an existing code assessment by late summer and to return recommendations from consultants on parking and zoning changes for council consideration.